ENDING JIM CROW IN AMERICAS RESTAURANTS

Racial and Gender

Occupational Segregation
in the Restaurant Industry
BY RESTAURANT OPPORTUNITIES CENTERS UNITED
WITH RESEARCH SUPPORT FROM

CHRIS BENNER, PH.D.

PROFESSOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND SOCIOLOGY
DIRECTOR, EVERETT PROGRAMDIGITAL TOOLS FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ
AND

FOOD LABOR RESEARCH CENTER

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

ENDING JIM CROW IN AMERICAS RESTAURANTS

ENDING JIM CROW IN AMERICAS RESTAURANTS

Racialand
andGender
GenderOccupational
OccupationalSegregation
Segregation
Racial
theRestaurant
RestaurantIndustry
Industry
ininthe

1 Executive Summary
3 Government Data Analysis of Wage Differentials by Race and Gender
4 Qualitative Research Results
6 Glossary of Terms
9 Introduction
10 Methodology
13 Government Data Analysis of Wage Differentials by Race and Gender
13 National Findings: Restaurant Wages in the United States
16 What Differences do Minimum Wage Laws Make?
Restaurant Wages by Variations in Sub-minimum Wage
18 California Employment Patterns: Restaurant Wages in California
19

Qualitative Research: Durable Inequality

19 Worker Challenges
21 Employer Voices: Challenges and Efforts at Desegregation
22 1. Implicit Bias
23 2. Hiring Process and Code Words
25 3. Training, Promotions, and Mobility
26 Consumer Barriers: Implicit and Explicit Bias
27 Conclusions
28 Policy Recommendations
29 Appendix: Additional Details on Restaurants Interviewed
31 Notes
32 Acknowledgments

Executive Summary

It shall be unlawful to conduct a restaurant or other place for the serving of food in the city, at which
white and colored people are served in the same room, unless such white and colored persons are effectually
separated by a solid partition extending from the floor upward to a distance of seven feet or higher, and
unless a separate entrance from the street is provided for each compartment.
JIM CROW LAW, ALABAMA 1

im Crow laws were state and local laws regulating racial segregation in public and private spaces (public
accommodations) in the US South. Discrimination in public accommodations was finally outlawed with
the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While Jim Crow regulated the enforced separation between
white and African American patrons in restaurants, today we largely find that restaurant workers are effectively
segregated by race and gender by a partition between livable-wage server and bartender positions and poverty
wage busser, runner, and kitchen positions, and between limited service (fast food), full service casual, and full
service fine-dining restaurants. White males appear to be afforded the opportunity to work in the highest paying,
most exclusive bartender and server positions in fine-dining restaurants; women, in general, appear channeled
towards lower paying positions in casual full-service restaurants; while Latinos and African Americans seem largely
channeled to lower paying busser, runner, or kitchen positions in full service restaurants and to limited-service,
fast food establishments.2 Women of color see the largest impact of such segregation on their wages, while African Americans, in many locations, are largely excluded from participation in the most lucrative segments of
the industry.3,4 It is time to end the occupational Jim Crow that pervades the industry and ensure women and
workers of color are provided genuine opportunities leading to equitable outcomes.
The restaurant industry employs nearly 11 million workers and is one of the fastest growing sectors of the
US economy.5 Despite the industrys growth, restaurant workers occupy seven of the ten lowest-paid occupations
reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the economic position of workers of color in the restaurant industry is particularly precarious.6 Restaurant workers experience poverty at nearly three times the rate of workers
overall, and workers of color experience poverty at nearly twice the rate of white restaurant workers.7
The restaurant industry can do better. Up to 20% of restaurant jobs provide livable-wages, and fine-dining
servers and bartenders in cities like San Francisco and Oakland can earn between $50,000 and $150,000 per
year.8 Unfortunately, people of color and in particular women of color face significant barriers in obtaining these
livable-wage positions.9 From 2007 until 2013, the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC) conducted
more than 400 matched pair audit tests, sending pairs of evenly matched white and people of color applicants
into fine-dining restaurants to see who would be hired in fine-dining server positions, and on that basis published a series of reports called The Great Service Divide. ROC found that white workers were more likely to be
interviewed, and twice as likely to be hired, as equally or better-qualified workers of color applying to the same
fine-dining establishments.10 This finding has been bolstered by recent research by economist John Nunley, who
found qualified young applicants of color less likely to be interviewed than their white counterparts, with the
highest racial discrimination occurring in service jobs that have substantial customer interaction.11
Workers of color are concentrated in lower-level busser and kitchen positions in fine-dining restaurants,
and overall in segments of the industry in which earnings are lower. A canvass of 133 fine-dining establishments

Race and gender segregation and wages by industry, segment, and tier
Gender and race by segment

Back-of-the-House
$10.40

22%

31%

35%

38%

43%

43%

69%

65%

62%

57%

$10.62

Fine Dining Tier I

23%
Fine Dining Tier II

34%
US All Industries

36%
US Tier I

40%
US Front

42%
US Fast Food

45%
US Restaurant

78%

77%

78%

23%

22%

57%
Fine Dining Tier I

42%

82%

77%

Fine Dining Tier II

11%

81%

66%

CA Tier I

$11.89

64%

CA All Industries

50%

$10.94

18%

60%

CA Front

4%
48%

Front-of-the-House

19%

58%

CA Fast Food

11%

$12.95

53%

55%

CA Restaurant

6%
40%

MEN

1,000,000

WOMEN

2,000,000

$11.64

WHITE

3,000,000

PEOPLE OF COLOR

Tier I

53%

US Tier II

4,000,000

PEOPLE OF COLOR WHITE

5,000,000

CA

47%

CA Tier II

US

47%

US Back

Tier I Fine Dining

Full Service
Fast Food

6,000,000

PEOPLE OF COLOR WHITE

Racial segregation by industry in the US and California

CA Back

FIG 1

Gender segregation by industry in the US and California

48%

45%

41%

31%

57%

43%

22%
Fine Dining Tier II

69%

78%

78%

22%
Fine Dining Tier II

59%

43%
Fine Dining Tier I

55%

US Back

52%

57%

Fine Dining Tier I

32%

CA Back

44%
US Tier II

58%
CA Tier I

CA Front

60%

47%

68%

CA Tier II

59%

56%

US All Industries

42%

52%

53%

CA All Industries

US Tier I

40%

61%

48%

US Restaurant

US Front

41%

64%

39%

US Restaurant

US Fast Food

Women and workers of color are largely concentrated in the lowest paying
segments and sections of the restaurant industry. Wages in the restaurant
industry lie on a continuum from the lowest in limited service (fast food) to the
highest in fine- dining restaurants. Wages also increase as you move from Tier
II positions in the Back-of-the-House, or the kitchen, to Tier I positions in the
Front-of-the-House, or the dining room where workers interact directly with
guests. Tier refers to higher and lower paid occupations within each section.
Upward mobility from a Tier II position to a Tier I position, and from a Limited
Service to Fine Dining position represent the most natural and meaningful
forms of advancement in the industry, and yet women and people of color are
often denied advancement opportunities.

65%

CA Fast Food

$9.92

MEN

$9.83

WHITE

PEOPLE
OF COLOR

MEN

WOMEN

39%

WOMEN

47%

MEN

48%

Tier II

WOMEN

54%

36%

35%

Total employment figures for full and limited service restaurants were derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Current Employment Statistics. Since the BLS does not account
for fine-dining restaurants as a percentage of the industry, we drew on the percentage of upscale fine-dining restaurants derived from a random sample of 1,150 restaurants in A National
Study of Human Resource Practices, Turnover, and Customer Service in the Restaurant Industry (ROC United, 2015). Race and gender demographic percentages for casual full service
were derived from overall restaurant demographics drawn from the Current Population Survey (CPS) 2013; percentages for limited service were derived from combined food prep and
serving occupations, including fast food from CPS 2013; and Tier I fine-dining were derived from canvassing a random sample of 133 fine-dining restaurants in the Great Service Divide
(ROC United, 2015). This should be seen as illustrative of both employment and demographic segregation within the industry. Wages, and race and gender segregation by industry in
the US and California were drawn from CPS 2013, except for CA Fast Food, drawn from combined food prep and serving occupations, including fast food from the American Community
Survey 2013, and fine-dining Tier I and Tier II, derived from the multi-city canvass of fine-dining restaurants in the Great Service Divide (2015).

found that 81% of management and 78% of higher-level non-management positions such as captain, manager, and bartender are occupied by white workers, a
disproportionate amount of these male.12 Mobility for workers of color is limited;
of workers that have been denied a promotion, 28% cited race as the primary
reason for their lack of opportunities.13 Overall, after adjusting for education and
language proficiency, workers of color receive 56% lower earnings when compared
to equally qualified white workers.14
In this report, we go beyond simply the patterns of discrimination in the
restaurant industry to understand in greater detail the factors contributing to this
racial segregation and explore interventions that can be effective in overcoming
these patterns. From 2013 to 2015, ROC convened a series of gatherings of employment discrimination experts and attorneys to explore potential policy and
programmatic interventions; these cohorts determined that further research was
needed to more deeply understand the biases, barriers, and challenges expressed by
workers, employers, and consumers that perpetuate segregation in the industry. In
this report, the first step after those gatherings, ROC conducted extensive analysis
of government data and a series of interviews with employers to understand the
extent and methods of further research needed to design policy and programmatic interventions to address segregation. We then discussed the findings with employment discrimination experts and attorneys, and referenced
an extensive database of worker interviews. We chose California as the appropriate place to conduct this research
and to engage in future policy development.
California is a critical place to examine racial segregation in the restaurant industry, with implications for the
industry nationwide. California is the state with the nations largest restaurant industry, including several cities
that are repeatedly named among the top dining destinations nationwide, and one of the most diverse populations
of any state in the country. California state and local laws also provide restaurant workers with better wages and
basic benefits, like paid sick days, than most other states, leaving racial segregation and lack of mobility among
workers of color as one of the key issues restaurant workers seek to address.
In an effort to better understand occupational segregation within the restaurant industry, we engaged in
an in-depth analysis of wages by gender, race, and occupation nationwide, by minimum wage level, and within
California by examining the Current Population Survey, coupled with a more exploratory analysis comprised of
a dozen interviews conducted with owners and general managers interested in discussing successes and challenges
in addressing occupational segregation primarily in Oakland and the San Francisco Bay Area, but also in Los
Angeles, and San Diego during June and July 2015. We then discussed these findings with academics and
experts, and compared them to hundreds of worker interviews from previous ROC studies.

Government Data Analysis of Wage Differentials by Race and Gender

Overall we found that there is substantial wage inequality, and significant occupational segregation, by both
gender and race in the restaurant industry.
Women make up 52% of all restaurant workers, but 64% of all Front-of-the-House occupations (see Table 1).
Women disproportionately occupy server positions, but earn substantially lower wages, likely as a result of working
in lower-tipping segments of the industry, such as casual restaurants. Workers of color are concentrated in Backof-the-House and Tier II occupations. African American workers earn the lowest wages in Back-of-the-House and
Tier II occupations, and lower wages than white workers in the Front-of-the-House and Tier I occupations. While
Latino workers have higher average wages in the lowest wage Back-of-the-House and Tier II occupations, where
they are largely concentrated, they earn the lowest wages in Tier I and Front-of-the-House occupations.
All workers of color experience racial segregation, but in California, Latinos experience the highest levels of
directly observable occupational segregation, with substantial under-representation in the higher-paying server

TABLE 1

United States: Average restaurant wages by tier and front-of-thehouse/back-of-the-house (FOH/BOH), and gender and race

Men
Women
White
African
American

Latino

Tier I $14.03 $10.10 $11.75 $11.73 $10.51

FOH $12.95 $9.81 $11.14 $10.33 $10.00
Tier II

$10.28

$9.25

$9.70

$9.08

$10.10

BOH $10.81 $9.51 $10.36 $9.74 $10.51

All

$11.83 $9.75 $10.89 $10.11 $10.25

Percentage of tiers and sections-of-the-house by gender and race

Men
Women
White
African
American

Latino

Tier I

18%

39%

61%

64%

9%

FOH 36% 64% 60% 11% 20%

Tier II 56% 44% 47% 14% 32%
BOH 68% 32% 47% 12% 34%
All

48% 52% 55% 11% 25%

and bartender occupations, while African Americans are largely

absent from meaningful participation in full service restaurant
occupations and overrepresented in limited-service fast food
occupations. Like women overall, even those people of color
employed in these typically higher wage categories earn substantially lower average wages. The greatest racial and gender
wage inequality is in the highest wage occupational categoriesnamely fine-dining server and bartender positions. In the
lower wage occupational categories (kitchen and non-managerial positions), average wages across all gender and race categories
are low and the differences between race and gender are substantially less than in the higher wage occupational categories.
Examining restaurant wages by race and gender in California, women of color earned $10.13 per hour on average,
compared to $11.30 for white women, $11.63 for men of color, and $14.18 for white men (see Table 2). Women of color,
on average, earned 71% of what white men earn.
All of these trends make California an ideal place to study
and consider solutions to racial inequality in the industry. States
with higher minimum wages tend to have less race and gender
inequality. As one of those states with a minimum wage that
is higher than the Federal minimum wage, California appears
to have less gender and race wage inequality than the national average, but inequality is higher when combining race and
gender, and patterns of racial occupational segregation are as
evident in California as elsewhere.

TABLE 2

California: Restaurant wages by front-of-the-house/back-of-thehouse (FOH/BOH) and race and gender

White White Men Women

Men
Women
of Color
of Color

FOH $15.06 $11.56 $12.85 $10.21

BOH $12.24 $9.96 $10.69 $9.92
All $14.18 $11.30 $11.63 $10.13
% Wage of White Men (All)

100% 80% 82% 71%

What Underpins These Patterns?

Qualitative Research Results
Even though the restaurant owners interviewed were asked specifically and agreed to be interviewed on race and occupational
segregation, many found it challenging to discuss the topic,
with several declining to give details about the racial and ethnic
composition of their staff. In the restaurants we studied and
have data for, a majority had white serving and bartending
staff, and overwhelmingly majority Latino kitchen staff, but
most expressed that they were diverse or even very diverse.
Several successful restaurants had majority staff of people of
color, demonstrating the possibility of hiring and retaining
workers of color in top-tier service positions, but these tended
to be smaller restaurants with ethnic cuisine and some geared to
specific communities of color. The restaurants with the highest
wages and greatest number of employees had the highest rates
of segregation in both Front-of-the-House service positions and
Back-of-the-House kitchen positions. There was much variation in both recruitment practices and training materials.
As a rule, the restaurants expressed that they sought work-

WORKE RS
Real barriers:
lack of training, social
networks, transportation

FIG 2

Real and perceived barriers

impacting occupational segregation

Perceived barriers:
self-selection bias and
stereotype threat

in the restaurant industry.

E MPL OYE RS
Real barriers:
lack of candidate pool
Perceived barriers:
implicit bias

CUST OMER S
Real barriers: lack of
experience with servers of
color and racial anxiety
Perceived barriers:
implicit bias

ers who were clean-cut, had good hygiene, or a professional appearance, all potential code-words for race,
and the majority expressed that there were no barriers to hiring or mobility except for language skills. The majority denied that race was an issue, while some felt it was an issue in the industry for others but not for them,
and only two thought it was an issue they faced. The restaurant owners and General Managers interviewed varied
in their opinion towards the cause of segregation, and stated that a lack of diversity was either not a problem, or
was caused by self-selection, and a lack of self-esteem, among the individuals who applied to certain positions,
by education and language barriers, by a lack of family structure and work ethic, or by the legacy of slavery that
made African Americans unwilling to work as servers.
Overall, the interviews of employers, combined with interviews with experts and workers, pointed to internalized, implicit, and deep-seated biases among all three restaurant stakeholders workers, employers, and consumers
that combine with real barriers all three stakeholders face to perpetuate racial segregation in the industry.
1 WORKERS
Worker interviews point to real barriers workers face in applying to livable-wage fine-dining service positions,
including lack of training, social networks, transportation, childcare, interactions with the criminal justice system, and more. In addition, both worker and employer interviews point to the existence of self-selection bias,
the fact that workers of color are less likely to apply for top-tier positions in fine-dining establishments, either
because management and/or clientele behavior makes them uncomfortable, or because they feel they lack the
education or skills to succeed in those positions. This bias is augmented by the fact that workers of color, due
to structural inequality, may succumb to stereotype threat in response to a perceived deficit in skills, and fail to
apply to Front-of the-House positions. Many restaurants rely largely on word of mouth outreach by their staff
to recruit applications for open positions, perpetuating the social networks that are currently employed.
I mean someone [of color] will walk in and they will specifically ask for a position. And thats when I recognize, okay.
Not that theres availability . . . , but theyll go, do you need a dishwasher, or do you need a busperson, and Im like,
oh, my goodness. RESTAURANT OWNER, casual full-service Asian restaurant, on the positions workers of color
tend to apply for

Glossary of Terms
Occupational Segregation
Disproportionate rates of representation of race, ethnic and/or gender-based groups in different job titles.
Discrimination
Unfair differences in employment treatment or employment outcomes
(such as hiring, promotions, earnings) that negatively impact certain
race/ethnic groups or genders. These differences may reflect explicit
(conscious) bias or implicit (unconscious) stereotypes.
Front-of-the-House and Back-of-the-House
Restaurant industry terms for placement and function of workers in
a restaurant setting. Front-of-the-House generally represents those
interacting with guests in the front of the restaurant, including hosts,
waitstaff, bussers, and runners. Back-of-the-House generally refers to
kitchen staff, including chefs, cooks, food preparation staff, dishwashers, and cleaners.
Tier I and Tier II
Tier I is a term we use to describe the higher-paid positions in both
the Front and Back-of-the-House; Tier II is the term we use to describe
the lower-paid positions in both the front and Back-of-the-House. Tier
I positions offer the highest wages, opportunities for advancement,
access to benefits, and career paths. Upward mobility from a Tier II
position to a Tier I position is the most natural and meaningful form
of advancement in this industry. This report primarily focuses on Tier I
Front-of-the-House positions.
High Road and Low Road
Industry terms describing alternative business strategies for achieving
productivity and profitability. High Road employment practices seek to
reduce employee turnover, enhance employee productivity, and increase
service quality by offering living wages, comprehensive fringe benefits,
reasonable workloads, opportunities for training and advancement,
and safe, legal working conditions. Low road employment practices
seek to minimize labor costs by offering low wages and few fringe
benefits, little training, heavy workloads, and minimal attention to
maintaining safe and legal working conditions.
White and Workers of Color
White is shorthand for non-Hispanic whites, and workers of color refer
to the categories of African American/Black, Latino, Asian, American
Indian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander, mixed race individuals,
and other categories, as gathered by the Current Population Survey
(CPS) and American Community Survey (ACS). The CPS and ACS use
the term Hispanic, but here the term Latino is used throughout.

Segment
The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) categorizes
the restaurant industry (Food Services and Drinking Places) into four
segments: full-service, limited service, special food services, such as
catering, and drinking places, or bars which serve drinks but not food.
Full-service
Restaurants have table service where the consumer orders from a
menu at a table. The restaurant categories described in this report
are similar to the NAICS categories, with the addition of a distinction within full-service between fine-dining and casual restaurants.
Distinguishing these two categories proves critical to our analysis
because job quality, employer practices, and patterns of ethnic and
racial employment and occupational segregation differ across the two
segments.
Fine-Dining
Full service restaurants with a price point per guest of $40.00 or more
including beverages but excluding gratuity. Full-service restaurants
are commonly referred to as upscale restaurants, and it is common
for fine-dining restaurants to have a unique concept (the name, menu,
and decor of a restaurant).
Casual restaurants
Also described as casual dining or family style restaurants, are
moderately priced full-service restaurants. They include franchise
or chain restaurants, such as Olive Garden or Applebees, as well as
independently-owned establishments.
Limited service
Also called Quick Serve, are restaurants that serve food without table
service. Examples include fast food restaurants like McDonalds, or
fast-casual restaurants, like Chipotle, that may have higher prices and
cater to different clientele.
Living Wage
The minimum level of earnings sufficient to support a typical worker in
any high cost area. In this report, this wage is assumed to be $19.04
per hour in the Oakland-Fremont, CA Metro Area, which equals $39,603
for a person with no dependents and no benefits employed 40 hours per
week for a full year, according to the Economic Policy Institutes Family
Budget Calculator. [http://www.epi.org/resources/budget/]

2 EMPLOYERS
In interviews, employers pointed to the lack of a sufficient candidate pool of
workers of color as a real barrier to desegregating their workplace. However,
previous studies of employers in multiple sectors find implicit bias is an institutional and structural factor leading to hiring and promotion discrimination,15
and this current study also points to the presence of perceived barriers and
implicit bias among employers.
Implicit bias is the subconscious bias or attitude towards a given characteristic, here race and gender, among restaurant owners and customers, that were
expressed through code-words, through the definition of diversity, or through
the unexamined expectation that mobility takes place within but not across
kitchen and service positions.
The restaurant is really equal opportunity. Most restaurants, I would say, its
about who hustles, who is smart, its total Darwinism. This restaurant, well, most
restaurants depend on speed. The sharpest, the brightest, the fastest usually go to
the top. RESTAURANT OWNER, fine-dining organic farm-to-table restaurant,
on opportunity and mobility within the industry

3 CUSTOMERS
We also found evidence of implicit, if not explicit, bias from customers. Most
restaurant owners were reticent to ascribe racial preferences to their customers, although at least one was certain that restaurant patrons did prefer to be
served by workers of their own race, and ethnic restaurants were the only ones
to have a significant presence of workers of color in the dining room. Also
of note is the haughty attitude of customers towards staff of color that one
restaurant owner described. This behavior, unless purposeful, is indicative of
the implicit biases many restaurant patrons carry, and to which they are most
likely oblivious. In addition, recent research from the Center for Social Inclusion has found that racial anxiety can actually increase when individuals are
faced with racially diverse messengers, despite an expressed desire for greater
racial diversity.16
I guarantee you, if I put all whites in uniforms in chef hats in the front, this caf
would be taken much more seriously as a food place than what I have right now,
and I could have the exact same food. RESTAURANT OWNER, casual full
service Caf, on customer attitudes towards race of service staff

The real and perceived barriers of all three stakeholders all reinforce each
other and allow current conditions to reproduce themselves. Additional study
is merited to both test these relationships, but also to examine interventions
that might break this cycle.

Introduction

he restaurant industry employs 11 million workers and is one of the fastest growing sectors of the US
economy.17 Despite the industrys growth, restaurant workers occupy seven of the ten lowest-paid occupations reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.18 The economic position of workers of color in the
restaurant industry is particularly precarious. Restaurant workers experience poverty at nearly three times the rate
of workers overall, and workers of color experience poverty at nearly twice the rate of white restaurant workers.19
Restaurant workers are also disadvantaged by federal minimum wage laws, which allow tipped workers to be
paid as little as $2.13 per hour.
The restaurant industry does provide livable-wage opportunities primarily in tipped Tier I, Front-of-theHouse positions such as bartending and serving, but these occupations are held largely by white male workers in
fine-dining establishments. While women make up over 66% of tipped occupations, they are primarily found
in casual full-service establishments where check-size, and tips, are much lower, and where the federal tipped
subminimum wage of only $2.13 is more likely to lead to economic insecurity. Our previous research has found
that workers of color face: a glass ceiling, granted living wage opportunities only 73% of the time; a low floor,
in a race tax of 56% lower earnings, both compared to equally qualified white workers; and a locked door, since
workers of color face structural and durable inequalities that exclude them from the industry. For example 22%
of African American workers are unemployed, compared to 10% of white workers, among those seeking positions
as bartenders and servers, compounding the exclusion of people of color in Tier I Front-of-the-House positions.20
A similar picture emerges for women in the restaurant industry, who are 47% less likely to earn a living wage
in Front-of-the-House occupations, and who experience a gender tax of 11% lower earnings than their equally
qualified male counterparts.21
With over one million restaurant workers22more than 10% of the nations total restaurant workforce,
California is one of the seven states without a lower subminimum wage for tipped workers. While this has led
to concrete improvements such as reductions in poverty rates, restaurant workers in California face many of the
same challenges and racial disparities as workers in other parts of the country.23 Despite higher wages overall, we
still see high rates of segregation, with women and workers of color primarily working in lower earning tiers and
segments than their male and white counterparts.
At the same time, California has one of the most diverse restaurant workforces in the nation, the nations
largest restaurant industry, and several cities that rank among the top dining destinations nationwide, as well
as better wages and basic benefits than most other states, making the state a ripe candidate to study gender and
racial segregation in the restaurant industry.
In an effort to better understand occupational segregation within the restaurant industry, we conducted an
in-depth analysis of wages by gender, race, and occupation in California and across the nation, coupled with
a series of interviews of restaurant owners in California for an exploratory analysis of successes and challenges
employers face when addressing occupational segregation. We then discussed these findings with academics and
experts, and compared them to hundreds of worker interviews to understand how best to create equitable career
ladders within the restaurant industry.

Methodology
Ending Jim Crow in Americas Restaurants represents the first step in exploring interventions after establishing
the extent of segregation and the role of discriminatory hiring practices through the Great Service Divide reports.
From 2013 to 2015, ROC convened a series of gatherings of employment discrimination experts and attorneys
to explore potential policy and programmatic interventions; these cohorts determined that deeper research was
needed to more deeply understand the biases, barriers, and challenges of workers, employers, and consumers
that perpetuate segregation in the industry. In this report, the first step after those gatherings, ROC conducted
extensive government data analysis and a small set of initial interviews with employers to understand the extent
and methods of further research needed to design policy and programmatic interventions to address segregation,
discussed the findings with employment discrimination experts and attorneys, and referenced an extensive database of worker interviews. We chose California as the appropriate place to conduct this research and to engage
in future policy development.
In examining the patterns of racial and gender segregation in the restaurant industry, we used the Current
Population Survey (CPS) Outgoing Rotation Group data, which is also sometimes known as the earnings files
or quarter sample of the CPS. This is the standard data set for analyzing hourly wages and employment patterns.
We used the annual merged file for 2013, as downloaded and processed by the Center for Economic and Policy
Research in Washington D.C.24 This data source provides hourly wage data, along with demographic data (race,
gender) that is the core of our analysis.
In analyzing patterns of occupational segregation, one of our interests is in the impact of having a separate
tipped minimum wage, not just on wages but also on patterns of occupational segregation. Thus, we make a
distinction between states based on the different laws governing minimum wages, and in particular how much
tipped workers can be paid as a minimum cash wage from their employer. Based on information from the Department of Labor on Minimum Wages for Tipped Employees25, these categories in 2013 were:
Between $2.13 and $2.99/hour: AL, AR, DE, DC, GA, IN, KS, KY,LA, MA,MI, MS, NC, NE, NJ, NM,
OK, PA, RI, SC, SD,TN, TX, UT, VA, WI, and WY
Between $3.00 and full minimum wage for tipped workers: (state tipped minimum in parentheses): AZ
($4.80), CO ($4.76), CT ($5.69), FL ($4.77), HI ($7.00), ID ($3.35), IL ($4.95), IA ($4.35), ME ($3.75),
MD ($3.63), MO ($3.68), NH ($3.26), NY ($5.00 for most), ND ($4.86), OH ($3.93), VT ($4.17),
and WV ($5.80).
Full minimum wage for tipped workers (with higher than federal minimum wage indicated in parentheses):
AK ($7.75), CA ($8.00), MN, MT ($7.80 for businesses with gross sales over $110,000), NV ($8.25 if
no health), OR ($8.95), WA ($9.19)

10

Tier I and Tier II positions in the

Front and Back-of-the-House

FIG 2

O
FR

K
AC

FT

H
HE

Sous Chef
Assists chef in
supervision of
kitchen; cooks

OU

SE

Matre d Supervises the dining room;

greets guests; directs hosts to seat guests

NT

T
OF

EH

S
OU

Line Cook
Cooks,
assists Sous and
Executive Chefs

TIER

Server Describes
food and beverage
specials; makes
recommendations;
takes orders

Bartender Takes
drink orders;
makes drinks
Executive Chef Creates menu;
supervises kitchen

Captain Supervises servers,

bussers, and runners;
describes specials;
makes food and beverage
recommendations

Sommelier
Creates wine
list; pairs foods
with wine; makes
recommendations

Host Answers phone;

takes reservations;
greets and seats guests

Barista Makes
coffee drinks
Busser
Brings bread
and water to
guests; clears
and cleans
table

TIER

II

Runner Brings food

from kitchen to guests
Barback Cleans
bar; stocks ice
and glasses;
otherwise assists
bartender

Prep Cook Preps all

ingredients for menu items

Dishwasher
Cleans dishes

Porter Cleans and maintains

cleanliness of restaurant

In analyzing patterns of occupational segregation, we distinguish between types of occupations in two different
ways (see Fig. 2):
Front-of-the-House versus Back-of-the-House
These are restaurant industry terms for placement and function of workers in a restaurant setting. Front-ofthe-House generally represents those interacting with guests in the front of the restaurant, including hosts,
waitstaff, bussers and runners. Back-of-the-House generally refers to kitchen staff, including chefs, cooks,
food preparation staff, dishwashers, and cleaners.
Tier I and Tier II
Tier I is a term to describe the higher-paid positions in both Front-of-the-House and Back-of-the-House.
Front-of-the-House occupations in Tier I include the matre d, supervisors, hosts, bartenders, and servers,
while Back-of-the-House occupations in Tier I include executive chefs, sous chefs, and line cooks. Tier II
is a term describing lower-paid positions in both Front-of-the-House and Back-of-the-House. In Front-ofthe-House, this includes bussers, runners, and baristas, while in Back-of-the-House this includes prep-cooks,
dishwashers, and porters.
In the government data analysis that follows, we first examine national conditions, then review patterns based
on our clustering of states by minimum wage, and finally discuss specific conditions in California. California
has a substantially higher percentage of the workforce who are people of color, which might suggest a greater
ability to overcome racial segregation, so in that final section we also specifically compare the California patterns
to the national patterns.
In order to deepen our understanding of the causes of differences in wages by occupational category and
position, and race and gender, we also interviewed twelve restaurant owners on the subject of occupational segregation and diversity within their restaurant(s) and the industry. As mentioned above, we also interviewed over
a dozen experts and combined this information with previous worker survey data.

11

TABLE 3

California: Establishment size

Employees

1-4

5-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100+

Sample

0% 25% 25% 42% 8% 0%
San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA

30% 21% 22% 18% 7% 1%

TABLE 4

The majority of restaurant owners interviewed have been recognized for

their success at promoting staff within their restaurant and many have shown
an interest in issues of occupational segregation. These restaurants were chosen
to see how they were or were not succeeding at promoting diversity, and all
agreed to be interviewed for an upcoming report on occupational segregation
in the restaurant industry [in particular about] the stories of restaurant employers who have succeeded in creating a diverse workforce that is not segregated
by position, but also the stories of restaurant employers who have attempted
and faced significant challenges in reaching this objective. An additional
four restaurants were interviewed due to their willingness to participate in the
project, though we did not have prior knowledge of their promotions practices.
The interview guide began with a survey of the number of staff, staff
turnover, wages, and benefits, followed by a set of questions on the individual
interviewees personal history, the history of the restaurant, the ownership
structure, gender and race of staff, hiring, training, and promotions practices,
staff turnover, wages and benefits, and a specific set of questions on segregation
in the industry. The interviews lasted from 30 to 90 minutes. Interviews were
transcribed and then coded in Dedoose for analysis.
Twelve restaurant owners and general managers were interviewed in a
range of full-service restaurants. Six of the restaurants were fine-dining establishments, and six were casual full service (including two fast-casual-style
establishments, both with table service). Five of the interviews were conducted
in Berkeley, four were conducted in Oakland, two were conducted in Los
Angeles, and one was conducted in San Diego.
The establishments were all small to mid-sized, employing from 8 to 68
non-managerial employees (see Table 3). Three establishments (25%) had from
five to nine employees, three (25%) had from 10 to 19 employees, and five
(42%) had from 20 to 49 employees. Only one (8% of total) had over 50 employees. For comparison, according to US Census County Business Patterns,
in the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA Metro area, 21% of full service
restaurants had from five to nine employees, 22% had 10 to 19 employees,
18% had from 20 to 49 employees, and 7% had from 50 to 99 employees.

United States and California: Comparing demographics of labor force by select industry

Gender

Race

Male Female White African Latino Asian Other
American
United States

All Industries

53% 47%

66% 11% 16% 6% 1%

Restaurants

48% 52%

55% 11% 25% 8% 1%

Fast Food Occupations

35%

64%

65%

14%

16%

3%

2%

California

12

All Industries

55% 45%

43% 5% 36% 16% 1%

Restaurants

52% 48%

31% 3% 51% 14% 1%

Fast Food Occupations

41%

35%

59%

6%

47%

9%

3%

Note: The findings for CA-Fast Food are derived from the American Community Survey, 2013 to ensure a sufficient sample size.
Fast Food Occupations refers to SOC Code 35-3021 Combined Food Preparation and Serving workers, Including Fast Food

Government Data Analysis on Wage Differentials

by Race and Gender
NATIONAL FINDINGS:
RESTAURANT WAGES IN THE UNITED STATES
Overall it is clear, before even examining racial occupational segregation
within the restaurant industry, that there is a significant amount of racial
sorting into the restaurant industry overall (see Table 4). Nationally, 66%
of the total labor force is white, while in the restaurant industry, this is
only 55%. Latinos make up 16% of the national labor force, but make
up 25% of the restaurant workforce. In California, the racial sorting is
even more pronounced. In California, white workers make up 43% of
the labor force, but only 31% of workers in restaurants. Latinos are 36%
of the overall labor force, but make up 51% of workers in the restaurant
industry. Patterns of gender sorting are also apparent, with the majority
of workers in the restaurant industry, both national and in California,
being women, though they make up less than the majority of the overall
labor force.
There is significant gender inequality and occupational segregation in
the industry (see Tables 5 and 6). Overall, nationally 48% of restaurant
workers are male and 52% are female, but women are disproportionately
in service positions, accounting for 64% of all Front-of-the-House workers, and disproportionately in Tier I occupations, accounting for 61% of
all Tier I workers. This does not translate, however, into better wages. The
average Front-of-the-House male worker in 2013 earned $12.95 per hour,
compared to only $9.81 for women in Front-of-the-House positions, or
the equivalent of about 76% of the average male wage. There is evidence
that this differential can be attributed to the fact that women are more
likely to work as servers in the casual restaurants that make up the majority
of full service restaurants in America, where wages and tips are far less than
in fine-dining restaurants. Our previous canvass of fine-dining restaurants
found that men held 57% of observed fine-dining server positions, compared to only 43% of women.26
In kitchen positions, the wage differential is less, though wages are
significantly lower. The average man in back of the house occupations
earned $10.81 per hour, compared to the average woman who earned
$9.51 per hour, or about 88% of the average Back-of-the-House male
worker. When looking at Tiers of occupations, the pattern is somewhat
similar. In Tier I occupations, women on average made only 72% of their
male counterparts$10.10 compared to $14.03. In Tier II occupations,
women made about 90% of what their male counterparts made$9.25
compared to $10.20 per hour. These patterns show that, despite women
being disproportionately employed in Tier I and Front-of-the-House occupations, they are paid substantially less, but that these inequalities are
more pronounced in the higher paid and more visible occupations in the
industry.
An examination of overall patterns of inequality and occupational

TABLE 5

Average wage by sex and Front/Back-of-House

Male

Female

All

FOH $12.95 $9.81 $10.94

BOH $10.81 $9.51 $10.40
All

$11.83 $9.75 $10.74

Male Female All

FOH 36% 64% 100%

BOH 68% 32% 100%
All

48% 52% 100%

TABLE 6

Average wage by sex and tier

Male

Female

All

Tier I

$14.03

$10.10

$11.64

Tier II

$10.28

$9.25

$9.83

All

$11.83 $9.75 $10.74

Male Female All

Tier I

39%

61%

100%

Tier II

56%

44%

100%

All

48% 52% 100%

13

TABLE 7

Average wage by race and Front/Back-of-House

White Black Hispanic Asian Other

All

FOH $11.14 $10.33 $10.00 $13.11 $9.72 $10.94

BOH
$10.36 $9.74 $10.51 $11.42 $9.20 $10.40
All $10.89 $10.11 $10.25 $12.49 $9.54 $10.74

White Black Hispanic Asian Other

All

FOH
60% 11% 20% 7% 1% 100%
BOH
47% 12% 34% 7% 1% 100%
All 55% 11% 25% 7% 1% 100%

TABLE 8

Average wage by race and tier

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian

Other

All

Tier I
$11.75 $11.73 $10.51 $13.66 $9.24 $11.64
Tier II
$9.70 $9.08 $10.10 $11.05 $9.94 $9.83
All $10.89 $10.11 $10.25 $12.49 $9.54 $10.74

White Black Hispanic Asian Other

All

Tier I
64% 9% 18% 8% 1% 100%
Tier II
47% 14% 32% 6% 1% 100%
All 55% 11% 25% 7% 1% 100%

TABLE 9

Average wage by race, gender, and Front/Back-of-the-House

White

People of Color

Male Female Male Female All

FOH
$13.91 $9.73 $11.69 $9.95 $10.94
BOH
$10.80 $9.51 $10.83 $9.51 $10.40
All $12.45 $9.69 $11.19 $9.83 $10.74

White

People of Color

Male Female Male Female All

FOH
20% 40% 15% 24% 100%
BOH
31% 16% 37% 16% 100%
All 24% 31% 23% 21% 100%

TABLE 10

Average wage by race, gender, and tier

White

People of Color

Male Female Male Female All

Tier I
$15.15 $9.92 $12.53 $10.49 $11.64
Tier II
$10.08 $9.22 $10.44 $9.28 $9.83
All $12.45 $9.69 $11.19 $9.83 $10.74

White

People of Color

Male Female Male Female All

Tier I
22% 42% 17% 19% 100%
Tier II
26% 21% 30% 23% 100%

14

All 24% 31% 23% 21% 100%

segregation by race shows that the occupational segregation is most pronounced for Latinos and African
Americans (see Tables 7 and 8). Latinos represent
25% of all restaurant workers, but they represent
34% of Back-of-the-House occupations, and 32%
of Tier II occupations. Even when they reach Frontof-the-House positions, Latinos earned lesson
average $10.00 per hour, compared to $11.14 for
white Front-of-the-House workers. African Americans also face occupational segregation and wage
inequality, though this is particularly pronounced
in terms of Tiers, rather than in terms of Front or
Back-of-the-House. Overall, African Americans
were 11% of restaurant workers in 2013, but they
represented 14% of all Tier II workers, and only 9%
of Tier I workers. The average Tier II African American worker earned only $9.08 per hour, less even
than Tier II Latino workers, who earned $10.10 per
hour. While African Americans are represented in
Front-of-the-House positions in closer proportions
to their overall representation in the industry (11%),
they earned significantly lower than whites in the
industry ($10.33 per hour compared to $11.14 per
hour). As with women, this can likely be explained
by their predominance as servers in quick-service
casual rather than fine-dining restaurants.
Examining the interaction nationally between
race and gender, we find that the situation is most
dire for both white women and women of color,
who face the highest levels of segregation and the
lowest wages (see Tables 9 and 10). At the national
level, white women overall appear to earn the lowest
wages, even lower than women of color which might
be explained in part by the over-representation of
white women in rural and suburban places where
wages are lower and by some evidence (see below)
that wages for Asians are actually higher on average
than whites. However, women of color are relegated
in greater numbers to Tier II occupations. Nationally, while women of color make up 21% of the
overall restaurant workforce, they make up 23% of
Tier II occupations, while white women, who make
up 31% of the overall restaurant workforce, make
up only 21% of Tier II occupations. White women
make up 40% of Front-of-the-House occupations,
while women of color only make up 24%. Wages for
white women are lower, overall, $9.69 per hour on
average, compared to $9.83 per hour for women of

TABLE 11

Average wage by state minimum wage range for tipped workers

$2.13 to $2.99

$3.00 to Federal Minimum

Above Federal Minimum

Male Female All

All States

Male Female All

Male Female All

Male Female All

FOH

$12.43 $9.44 $10.46

$13.36 $9.97 $11.22

$13.49 $10.64 $11.73 $12.95 $9.81 $10.94

BOH

$10.43 $9.36 $10.07

$11.28 $9.52 $10.76

$10.90 $9.92 $10.58 $10.81 $9.51 $10.40

Tier I

$13.63 $9.82 $11.25

$14.18 $10.07 $11.73

$14.76 $10.94 $12.50 $14.03 $10.10 $11.64

Tier II

$9.84 $8.89 $9.40

$10.87 $9.58 $10.34

$10.28 $9.79 $10.07 $10.28 $9.25 $9.83

All

$11.38 $9.42 $10.32

$12.25 $9.87 $11.05

$12.16 $10.47 $11.30 $11.83 $9.75 $10.74

Percent of workforce category

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

FOH

34% 66%

37% 63%

38% 62%

36% 64%

BOH 66% 34%

70% 30%

68% 32%

68% 32%

Tier I 38% 62%

40% 60%

41% 59%

39% 61%

Tier II 54% 46%

59% 41%

58% 42%

56% 44%

All

49% 51%

49% 51%

48% 52%

TABLE 12

46% 54%

Average wage by state minimum wage laws for tipped workers, by Front/Back-of-House occupations

$2.13 to $2.99

Front Back All

$3.00 to Federal Minimum

Front Back All

Above Federal Minimum

Front Back All

All States

Front Back All

Average Wage
White

$10.87 $10.10 $10.63

$11.07 $10.55 $10.91

$12.27 $10.78 $11.81 $11.14 $10.36 $10.89

Black

$9.90 $9.79 $9.86

$11.31 $9.35 $10.54

$10.20 $11.87 $10.78 $10.33 $9.74 $10.11

Hispanic $9.19 $10.15 $9.66

$10.64 $11.26 $10.97

$10.62 $10.19 $10.42 $10.00 $10.51 $10.25

Asian

$12.10 $10.34 $11.44

$13.59 $12.27 $13.10

$13.46 $11.46 $12.78 $13.11 $11.42 $12.49

Other $9.83 $9.20 $9.57

$10.21 $8.53 $9.78

$9.27 $9.56 $9.35 $9.72 $9.20 $9.54

Total

$11.22 $10.76 $11.05

$11.73 $10.58 $11.30 $10.94 $10.40 $10.74

$10.46 $10.07 $10.32

Percent of workforce category

White 62% 49% 57%

65% 51% 60%

48% 36% 44%

60% 47% 55%

Black 15% 16% 15%

10% 11% 10%

3% 3% 3%

11% 12% 11%

Hispanic
18% 30% 23%

17% 31% 22%

34% 49% 40%

20% 34% 25%

Asian 4% 4% 4%

8% 8% 8%

13%
11%
12% 7% 7% 7%

Other 1% 1% 1%

1% 0% 1%

2% 1% 2%

Total

100% 100% 100%

100% 100% 100%

1% 1% 1%

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

color, but both are lower than men of color, who earn $11.19 per hour on average, while white
men earn $12.45 per hour. Here again we see the impact of concentrating women, particularly
white women, in lower paying jobs in casual full-service restaurants.
Overall we see clear evidence of both gender and racial wage inequality and substantial
occupational segregation by gender, and at least moderate occupational segregation by race that
most dramatically affects Latinos and African Americans. To what extent do different minimum
and tipped minimum wage law affects these patterns? That is what we turn to next.

15

WHAT DIFFERENCES DO MINIMUM WAGE LAWS MAKE?

RESTAURANT WAGES BY VARIATIONS IN SUB-MINIMUM WAGE
As a reminder, in analyzing the impact of minimum wage laws on occupational segregation and inequality
patterns, we divided the states into three categories: those that have a tipped minimum for restaurant workers
between $2.13 per hour (the Federal minimum) and $2.99 per hour; those that have a tipped minimum between $3.00 and $7.25 per hour (including those that dont have a separate tipped minimum); and those with
a minimum wage higher than $7.25/hour.
In looking at segregation and inequality, it is clear that gender occupational segregation is even more pronounced in the lowest wage states than other states, and that it is somewhat less prevalent (though still strong) in
those states that pay above the Federal minimum. As shown in Table 11, in the lowest wage states overall, women
make up 54% of all employees (compared to 52% in all states), and they made up 66% of Front-of-the-House
positions (compared to 62% in the highest wage states) and 62% of Tier I positions (compared to 59% nationally). But wages for women remain below average across all states. In the lowest wage states, the average wage for
women in Front-of-the-House positions was $9.44/hour, or only 76% of the average wage for men in the same
positions, while women in Tier I positions made $9.82, only 72% of the male Tier I average wage of $13.63. In
the highest wage states, there was only slightly better wage parity, with women in Front-of-the-House positions
earning 79% of their male counter parts ($10.64 versus $13.49), and women in Tier I occupations earning 74%
of their male counter parts ($10.94 versus $14.76). Average wages overall in the highest wage states are nearly
10% higher than in the lowest wage states, but even though the minimum wage isnt designed to address gender
inequality at all, there is also evidence that those states with higher minimum wage levels also have somewhat
less gender segregation and gender wage inequality.
In terms of racial inequality and occupational segregation, it is less clear whether higher minimum wage
laws make any difference (see Tables 12 and 13). For example, in the lowest wage states, Latinos make up 23%
of the total workforce, 30% of Back-of-the-House occupations, and 28% of Tier II occupations, while in the
highest wage states, Latinos make up 40% of the total workforce, 49% of the Back-of-the-House occupations,
and 51% of Tier II occupations, which is a slightly more disproportionately segregated workforce in those higher
minimum wage states. Similarly, in low-wage states, African Americans made up 15% of the total restaurant

TABLE 13

Average Wage By State Minimum Wage Laws for Tipped Workers, by Occupation Tiers

$2.13 to $2.99

White

Tier 1

Tier 2

All

$3.00 to Federal Minimum

Tier 1

Tier 2

All

Above Federal Minimum

Tier 1

Tier 2

All

Tier 1

All States
Tier 2

All

$11.63 $9.30 $10.63

$11.54 $10.02 $10.91

$12.67 $10.42 $11.81 $11.75 $9.70 $10.89

Black $11.36 $8.93 $9.86

$12.70 $9.11 $10.54

$10.51 $10.95 $10.78 $11.73 $9.08 $10.11

Hispanic $9.58 $9.70 $9.66

$10.87 $11.02 $10.97

$11.61 $9.74 $10.42 $10.51 $10.10 $10.25

Asian

$12.22 $10.57 $11.44

$13.98 $12.04 $13.10

$14.54 $10.24 $12.78 $13.66 $11.05 $12.49

Other $9.22 $9.97 $9.57

$10.24 $8.57 $9.78

$8.47 $10.35 $9.35 $9.24 $9.94 $9.54

Total

$11.73 $10.34 $11.05

$12.50 $10.07 $11.30 $11.64 $9.83 $10.74

$11.25 $9.40 $10.32

Percent of workforce category

White 66% 48% 57%

68% 51% 60%

53% 34% 44%

64% 47% 55%

Black 12% 19% 15%

8% 13% 10%

2% 4% 3%

9% 14% 11%

Hispanic
17% 28% 23%

15% 29% 22%

29% 51% 40%

18% 32% 25%

Asian 5% 4% 4%

8% 7% 8%

14%
10%
12% 8% 6% 7%

Other 1% 1% 1%

1% 0% 1%

2% 2% 2%

Total

16

100% 100% 100%

100% 100% 100%

1% 1% 1%

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

workforce, 16% of the Back-of-the-House occupations, and 19% of Tier II occupations, while in the highest minimum wage states, African Americans made up 3% of
the total restaurant workforce, 3% of Back-of-the-House occupations and 4% of Tier
II occupations, again showing no better and perhaps worse patterns of occupational
segregation than in the lowest minimum wage states. In terms of wages, overall in the
lowest wage states, Latinos on average earned 91% ($9.66 versus $10.63), and African
Americans earned on average 93% ($9.86 versus $10.63), of what whites made, and in
Back-of-the-house or in Tier II occupations, there were not substantial wage differences
(in Tier II occupations, Latinos actually earned on average more than whites $9.70
versus $9.30). But in the Front-of-the-House and Tier I occupations, more substantial
racial differences in wages are apparent. Latinos in Front-of-the-House occupations,
for example, earned on average only 85% of what whites did, and Latinos in Tier I
positions earned only 82% of what their white counterparts did. African Americans
in Front-of-the-House positions earned 91% as much as their white counterparts, and
in Tier I positions made almost the same amount (98%).
In states with higher minimum wage laws, the levels of racial wage inequality
were not dramatically different, but were perhaps slightly better in terms of wages
in the better-paying occupations for Latinos, and slightly worse for African Americans. In these states, on average Latinos earned 88% of what whites earned overall,
but in Front-of-the-House occupations, they earned 87% of the average white wage
(compared to 85% in the lowest wage states), and in Tier I occupations, they earned
92% of the average white wage (compared to 82% in the lowest wage states). African
Americans overall earned 91% of the average wage for white workers ($10.78 versus
$11.81), which was slightly worse relatively than the 93% in the lowest wage states, but
in Front-of-the-House and Tier I occupations they earned only 83% as much as their
white counterpart ($10.20 versus $12.27 in Front-of-the-House occupations, $10.51
versus $12.67 in Tier I occupations). Across all categories of states, Asians continued
to show the highest average wage levels.
We should stress here that what we are exploring is correlations. We do not know
if there is any direct causation between minimum wage laws and patterns of racial or
gender inequality, and it is possible to argue that there may be causative effects that go
both ways (i.e. minimum wage laws may influence patterns of occupational segregation
and inequality, and patterns of occupational segregation and inequality may influence
the ability to pass state minimum wage legislation that differs from the Federal law). It
is also important to stress that the racial demographics are quite different across these
different categories of statesthe states with the lowest minimum wage laws have a
substantially higher proportion of African Americans in the restaurant workforce, while
those with minimum wages above the Federal minimum have a substantially higher
proportion of Latino and Asian workers.
Nonetheless, the different patterns of gender and racial inequality and occupational segregation are striking. In sum, in terms of gender segregation and inequality,
the lowest wage states have substantially greater levels of occupational segregation,
but inequality in wage levels are pretty consistent across all states. In terms of racial
segregation and inequality, there is little difference in occupational segregation across
states, but there are substantial differences in the levels of racial wage inequality. In all
states, women and people of color clearly have lower wages, regardless of the occupational category they are in.

17

TABLE 14

California: Restaurant wages by Front/Back-of-House and gender

Male

Female

All

FOH

$13.62 $10.74 $11.89

BOH

$10.93 $9.93 $10.62

All

$12.27 $10.56 $11.42

Percent of Front-of-House/Back-of-House Category

FOH

40% 60% 100%

BOH

69% 31% 100%

All

51% 49% 100%

TABLE 15

California: Restaurant wages by tier and gender

Male Female All

Tier I

$15.33 $11.22 $12.95

Tier II

$10.11 $9.64

All

$12.27 $10.56 $11.42

$9.92

Percent of workforce tier

Tier 1

42%

58%

100%

Tier 2

59%

41%

100%

All

51% 49% 100%

TABLE 16

California: Restaurant wages by Front/Back-of-House and race

White

Black Hispanic Asian

Other

All

FOH $12.85 NA $10.58

$14.37 NA $11.89
BOH $11.28 NA $10.16
$11.34 NA $10.62
All

$12.49 NA $10.39
$13.19 NA $11.42

Percent of Front-of-House/Back-of-House category

FOH 38% 3% 45% 13% 1% 100%
BOH 19% 2% 65% 14% 0% 100%
All

31% 3% 52% 13% 1% 100%

TABLE 17

CALIFORNIA: Restaurant Wages by Tier and Race

White

Black Hispanic Asian

Other

All

Tier I $13.45 NA $11.62

$15.56
$8.05 NA
Tier II $10.25 NA $9.69
$10.14
$12.27 NA
All

$12.49 NA $10.39
$13.19
$9.53 NA

Percent of Tier Category

Tier I 43% 2% 38% 15% 1% 100%
Tier II 18% 4% 66% 12% 1% 100%
All

18

31% 3% 52% 13% 1% 100%

CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS:

RESTAURANT WAGES IN CALIFORNIA
What do patterns of gender and racial occupational segregation and inequality in California look like? In general, despite
Californias reputation as a progressive state, patterns of gender and racial inequality are still quite pronounced.
Women made up 49% of all restaurant workers in
2013. Like the rest of the country, women are disproportionately employed in service occupationsin California
they comprise 60% of Front-of-the-House workers (see
Table 14). They also comprise 58% of Tier I workers (see
Table 15). Women still face high levels of inequality in wages, which is again most pronounced in Front-of-the-House
or Tier I occupations, and somewhat less pronounced in
Back-of-the-House or Tier II occupations. The average
Front-of-the-House female restaurant worker earned $10.74
in 2013, which was 78% of male Front-of-the-House workers, while Back-of-the-House female workers made 91% of
Back-of-the-House male workers ($9.93 versus $10.93). Differences were even more pronounced by occupational tiers:
women Tier I workers made only 73% as much as male Tier I
workers ($11.22 versus $15.33), though female Tier II workers made on average more than 95% as much as male Tier II
workers ($9.64 versus $10.11).
In looking at racial patterns of employment in California
restaurants, there is also quite significant occupational segregation and wage inequality (see Tables 16 and 17). Latinos
make up 52% of all restaurant employees, but they make up
65% of all Back-of-the-House workers and 66% of Tier II
workers, and only 45% of Front-of-the-House workers and
38% of Tier I workers. Even once they advance to Tier I
occupations, Latinos continue to receive significantly lower
pay. In service occupations, Latinos make only 82% as much
as whites in the same occupations ($10.58 versus $12.85),
and in Tier I occupations, they make 86% as much ($11.62
versus $13.45). The racial differences in wages are not so
dramatic in the lower wage occupations. However, African
Americans make up only 3% of the total workforce in the
restaurant industry even though they make up 5% of all
employed workers. They are disproportionately in Tier II
occupations (4% of all positions), and can primarily be found
in limited service occupations (6%, see Table 2)27. As is the
pattern across the country, Asians generally have higher than
average wages and dont face substantial occupational segregation overall.
A closer examination of race and gender in California,
with a more diverse workforce, again finds a more compli-

cated picture, where women of color are a higher percentage

of the workforce but are relegated to the lowest paying positions in both the Front and Back-of-the-House (see Table
18). Women of color make up the highest percentage of
both Front-of-the-House (36%) and Back-of-the-House
(23%) workers, yet earn the lowest wages in both categories
($10.21 and $9.92 per hour, respectively). As with white
women nationally, women of color in California dominate
the lowest paying segments of casual full-service, denied access to livable-wage jobs in fine-dining. We can also see that
men of color are overwhelmingly relegated to kitchen positions, making up 58% of all Back-of-the-House workers even
though they only represent 38% of the restaurant workforce
in California.

TABLE 18

California: Restaurant wages by race, gender,

and Front/Back-of-the-House

White

People of Color

Male Female Male Female All

FOH $15.06 $11.56 $12.85 $10.21 $11.89

BOH $12.24 $9.96 $10.69 $9.92 $10.62
All

$14.18 $11.30 $11.63 $10.13 $11.42

Percent of Front-of-House/Back-of-House

White

People of Color

Male Female Male Female All

FOH 14% 24% 26% 36% 100%

BOH 11% 8% 58% 23%
100%
All 13% 18% 38% 32% 100%

Qualitative Research: Durable Inequality

The real barriers and gaps revealed through the quantitative analysis of wages and occupational segregation
were borne out in the general patterns and trends revealed through the qualitative interview analysis, pointing
to a compelling interactivity between potential biases and discrimination. Overall, the interviews of employers,
combined with interviews with experts and worker survey data analysis, pointed to internalized, implicit and
deep-seated biases among all three restaurant stakeholders workers, employers, and consumers that combine
with real barriers all three stakeholders face to perpetuate racial segregation in the industry.
WORKER CHALLENGES
Previous worker surveys and interviews point to real barriers workers face in applying to livable-wage fine-dining service positions, including lack of training and social networks, transportation, the high cost of childcare,
interactions with the criminal justice system, and more. For example, much of the training in the industry is
only offered during pre-shift meetings for Tier I Front-of-the-House staff to assist their daily interactions with
guests, and excludes bussers, runners, and Back-of-the-House workers, disproportionately impacting workers of
color; likewise, social networks are essential not only for hearing of job openings, but receiving informal training,
perpetuating the current racial and gender dynamic.28 Long commutes and lack of public transportation prevent
workers from accessing higher wage jobs, for example, in Los Angeles where 81% of restaurant workers who
ride the bus are people of color, and 63% of workers who forego job offers due to a lack of transportation are
women.29 Working mothers in the restaurant industry report spending 35% of their income on childcare, and
nearly half of these mothers are women of color.30 These problems are confounded for the formerly incarcerated;
the food service industry is one of the few job sectors open to returning offenders who are limited by low-skill
sets and education.31 Moreover, many prisons offer employment training in culinary arts to facilitate a transition
to restaurant industry employment on the outside, but mostly in entry-level positions with little opportunity
for advancement.

19

In addition, a primary cause of inequality in the restaurant industry are the real structural barriers that many
workers of color face, primarily in African American and Latino communities.32 Poor people of color are more
likely to experience higher unemployment levels, lower quality education and housing, increased probability of
violence, and reduced health outcomes, directly leading to lower economic opportunities, weaker social networks,
and reduced chances of economic mobility.33, 34, 35 These barriers provide the foundation for the system that
channels workers into particular occupations, and create self-justifying rationales for self-selection bias among
workers, implicit bias among employers, and bias from customers.36
These real barriers can perhaps be seen in the experience of one fine-dining employer, who felt she made
undue allowances to recruit staff of color:
The bottom line is, I expect them all to show up here on time everyday, and I am constantly making an
allowance. Making an allowance for bad behavior, or problems out in the field as [a] reason not to show up
for your job on time it was almost reverse discrimination. And its been painful, she was important to us
for a lot of reasons Sadly, the burden left me immediately once she left, and the change here was pretty
dramatic There is another African American boy that just didnt make the cut and I am very, its a hard
thing for me to speak [about].
In this study, however, employers self-reported accounts of their hiring practices add to the real challenges workers of color face due to their lack of social networks. The majority of the restaurants interviewed sought new
hires through word-of-mouth and through networks of current employees. This practice tends to reproduce the
existing racial dynamics present in the restaurant and excludes workers without access to strong social networks.
Our newest set of employer interviews also indicate an additional, less tangible barrier for workers. Employers
reported a lack of a candidate pool of workers of color, indicating that few workers of color applied for server
positions in their restaurants in other words, a self-selection bias. Under self-selection bias, workers choose not
to apply for new positions because they feel they will be unwelcome or unable to perform the required duties.
One restaurant owner at an ethnic Asian restaurant noted that people of color frequently or only apply for
lower-paying positions. Yeah, they do. I mean, someone [of color] will walk in and they will specifically ask for
a position. And thats when I recognize, ok theyll go, do you need a dishwasher, or do you need a busperson,
and Im like, oh, my goodness.
Likewise, another employer at a fine-dining restaurant noted that white applicants do not apply for the
lower-paying positions: We almost never get that typical Front-of-the-House employee [i.e. a white person]
applying for a Back-of-the-House dishwashing job. It just never happens.
The mirror image of this experience can be seen in the ethnic restaurants who are able to hire staff comprised
entirely of workers of color, and some of which lament the dearth of applicants of other races, white or otherwise.
One General Manager at a casual full-service restaurant stated, I inherited a kitchen full of Mexican men. And
they are really good at their job and great guys to hang out with, and responsible workers. But they do not make
it comfortable to work with them for people that they do not like and part of that scenario is when they are
working with a bunch of men and then there is a woman there.
Another owner of a casual full service caf found a similar dynamic, while reiterating the importance of
social networks:
I think it is classic in the restaurant industry to have Latinos in the back and whites in the front That
is what the industry is. I think a lot of times Latino workers, you can get other workers through the network that exists. Like it is sort of easier to rely on that network than to go and try and challenge that
network. There is also, quite honest, because we have experienced it, where you will bring someone in who
is of another ethnicity, into the group, and there needs to be time for adjustment . . . I will bring African
American people in, and there happens to be an all Latino crew there, there is an obvious tension that
exists, and there is no denying it
Related to self-selection bias is the concept of stereotype threat, in which the negative stereotypes of the outside

20

world are internalized and dampen an individuals ability to perform, for example, as has been shown in students
of color working on standardized tests, and women working on math tests. When a stereotype is invoked, performance declines, and when it is not, performance matches that of white students and men.37, 38
The experience of an owner at a fine-dining farm-to-table restaurant exemplifies this:
I would say people with more education tend to apply for serving positions because there is so much communication and computer work involved. But then, people who are maybe not native English speakers tend
to apply more for dishwasher, where language skills arent required.
The legacy of slavery was also mentioned by one of the fine-dining employers as the root cause of self-selection
bias by African Americans who are largely absent from service positions in the industry:
Ironically, I dont know why, we do have African American employees in both restaurants, but there is a
lower percentage of them in the industry. And I think its just because, its like slavery, a lot of people dont
want to serve A lot of my African American friends I have a sister who has an African American
father have expressed to me that they have no interest in being a server and having to get things for people,
because, you know, that reminds them of slavery.
In our interviews, a certain look and demeanor was the desired quality for service positions, and work ethic was
praised as a necessary quality for kitchen positions. Interviewees indicated that that work ethic was embodied
in the Latino worker in the Back-of-the-House. One of the interviewees attributed turnover in the kitchen to
the lack of a strong work ethic Back-of-the-House has a higher turnover rate because people arent up to the
job. This restaurant had a kitchen without a Latino majority, whereas other restaurants with a Latino Backof-the-House spoke of low turnover. While language was seen by many as a strong barrier to promotion, the
invisible barrier described between the Front and Back-of-the-House also serves as a disincentive for workers to
apply to, in particular, Tier I service positions, since it was assumed beforehand that they would prove incapable
of doing the job.
One of the owners at a mid-sized fine-dining restaurant offered her interpretation of what led to success:
People who have had really good parenting, where theres been boundaries, and encouragement, and positive
feedback, do the best. And people who come from broken homes, and dont understand boundaries, who dont
understand punctuality, or make bad choices, or have never really faced consequences for their choices do the
worst this is very much a performance based environment. It is possible that such blanket assumptions
about groups of individuals without real knowledge of these individuals circumstances - become self-fulfilling
prophecies. If it is believed an individual will not succeed, that individual becomes less likely to succeed.
EMPLOYER VOICES: CHALLENGES AND EFFORTS AT DESEGREGATION
The restaurants interviewed for this project varied widely in both their hiring and promotions practices, and
their attitudes towards both mobility in particular and occupational segregation in general. The majority of the
restaurant owners and general managers interviewed were willing to be interviewed on the topic of occupational
segregation, and a few were deeply concerned about the topic. We see three major sources of employer discrimination. First, our initial matched pair audit testing studies revealed explicit bias, in which employers knowingly
discriminate or respond to customer discrimination. Second, interviews for this report revealed implicit bias,
where unexamined, unconscious biases lead employers to accept or rationalize current employment patterns and
thereby perpetuate segregation. Third, as described above, employers experience a genuine lack of qualified candidates, due to the actual deficits, either educational, cultural, or social deficits associated with a lack of resources
in impoverished communities, that functionally might prevent workers of color from advancing to higher paying
occupations. We observe that these three phenomena perpetuate one another to blur the lines between real and
perceived barriers to desegregation.

21

TABLE 19

Demographics of the restaurant industry in California

22

White

People of Color Men

Women

FOH 38%

62%

40% 60%

BOH 19%

81%

69% 31%

1 Implicit Bias
Implicit bias, or the subconscious attitudes and stereotypes that impact our
behavior and decisions, arises as a strong candidate choice for understanding
racial segregation in the restaurant industry. Implicit bias affects behaviors
and intentions, such that even though employers state they are not racist or
aim to have a diverse staff, it can ultimately lead to inhibition of fair hiring,
promotion, and working processes.39 Implicit bias on the side of owners seems
to be at play both in the practice and discourse of the individuals interviewed,
both in the actual demographics of the restaurants and the expressed and unexpressed attitudes towards the demographics of the restaurants, hiring practices,
and opportunities for mobility within the restaurant.
Implicit bias can be discerned in the attitudes towards the demographic
composition of the restaurants. The restaurant owners interviewed generally
took pride in the diversity of their restaurants, yet tended towards having more
segregation between service and kitchen positions the same trend previously
observed for fine-dining restaurants in the Great Service Divide, and several
of the interviewees declined to offer specifics on the ethnic breakdown of
their restaurants, noting only that their Front-of-the-House staff was diverse.
Overall, the restaurants interviewed had a higher percentage of white workers
in the Front-of-the-House and a lower percentage in the Back-of-the-House,
with the inverse for workers of color. Front-of-the-House Asian and Latino
workers, and both Front and Back-of-the-House African American workers
were largely absent from the restaurants that were not specifically ethnic restaurants.
The figures in Table 19 do not include two restaurants that declined
to give exact numbers for staff in the Back-of-the-House by race, and four
restaurants that declined to give exact numbers for race of staff in the Frontof-the-House. All of the restaurants that declined to give exact figures claimed
that they had a very diverse staff, noting its like United Colors of Benetton
in here, we have Asian, we have African American, we have Latino, and
Hispanic, African American, Caucasian. One simply stated they were diverse, but did not elaborate. All four of these interviewees were white males.
Similarly, two of these same interviewees declined to give the racial breakdown
of Back-of-the-House staff, one simply noting it was diverse, and the other
noting it was Hispanic, African American, Caucasian. The other two interviewees noted that kitchen staff was mostly Latino, over 90% in fact.
The two restaurants that declined to give Back-of-the-House figures represented 20% of the total employees in the sample, and the four restaurants
declining to give Front-of-the-House figures represented 43% of the employees
in the sample. In addition, two of the restaurants that declined specifics gave
other indications that service staff was primarily white. One of these owners
noted that their Front-of-the-House staff was a diverse mix but weighted
towards native English speaking Caucasians.
Another owner, asked about the ethnicity of her workers, offered that she
hated these types of questions and would rather not say, But I will say that we
are very diverse. This same owner, while refusing to describe her own ethnic
makeup or that of the restaurant directly, made reference to the ethnic identities of its employees throughout the interview. She reported that there is one

server who is African American and that most Latino workers are in the Back-of-the-House. In this restaurant
with nine employees, there is one African American in the Front-of-the-House and another in the Back-of-theHouse, two white workers in the Front-of-the-House, two Latinos in the Front-of-the-House, and three in the
Back-of-the-House. This restaurant employer also had an African American business partner, and yet she also felt
she had difficulty retaining workers of color, perhaps due to the interactions with customers: We do get a lot
of business people and then we get a lot of entitled people. There is a way in which they talk to the staff which
is very inappropriate or is not respectful.
It is possible that the temperament and ethnic makeup of the clientele is what allows two of the Soul
Food-themed restaurants, one fine-dining, one casual full service, to maintain an entirely African American
Front-of-the-House staff: because more people of color are familiar with the food and feel more welcome to
come in off the street and ask for a job. This does not necessarily explain why the kitchen staff in these two
restaurants is also overwhelmingly African American.
Ethnicity and language play an important role in maintaining a people of color, but primarily mono-ethnic
staff at the Asian and one of the Latin American themed restaurants. At the Latin American themed restaurant,
the majority of clientele was both of Latin American descent and spoke Spanish, and they only had one employee
who was white. The manager there, lamenting that other ethnicities did not apply, noted, We would love to be
like the Culture Club here it would be awesome to have all the races here No vienen. No one applies for a
new job We are open to everyone we just want a hard worker. However, she also complained about how
slow their sole white employee was. This particular person was so slow, so slow. He has been in training for
three months and he hasnt got it yet. But he has las ganas the will to work and learn through experience. Of
note, this manager found it offensive that the majority of Back-of-the-House workers throughout the industry
were Latino. I dont know if its a racial thing or not, but I dont like it at some point. . . Why do they want to
have us like that, in that one spot? For me, that is a particular spot. And if I go to [a restaurant], there is only
one Latino attending, and all the other ones are Caucasian.
At the Asian themed restaurant, the family that ran it was entirely Asian except for the white owner. She
noted, people come in and they see me and they walk right out. The only explanation I can come up with
is, because I am not [Asian], they wont think the food here is original and they will make a huge assumption
and leave. Those that know me Ive been complimented. This contrasted with the white male owner of a
fine-dining Latin American themed restaurant, who felt weird discussing the ethnic makeup of the restaurant,
but expressed awareness that the big divide in ethnic make-up is between the Front and Back-of-the-House. This
restaurant, one of the largest in the sample, had the highest earning potential for both service and kitchen staff
due to its revenue-sharing structure, yet it was also the most clearly segregated establishment with a majority
white Front-of-the-House (85%) and overwhelmingly Latino Back-of-the-House (90%).
It is of note that race was a difficult subject for most if not all respondents to discuss. Even though they all
agreed to participate in an interview about occupational segregation and answer questions about their efforts
in creating a diverse workforce that is not segregated by position, employers still had difficulty addressing this
issue directly and several refused to discuss race in detail at all. Even employers who acknowledged the problem
of segregation in the industry and demonstrated an interest in addressing this issue in their own establishments
felt uncomfortable answering questions about their efforts to promote a diverse workplace.
2 Hiring Process and Code Words
Some of the language used to describe both the qualities desired for new hires, as well as the individual characteristics leading to turnover, could be construed as racialized code words: good attitude, work ethic, lack
of initiative, drive, clean cut, presentable, or even words such as warmth, aura, and personality.
These and other words have become tropes to describe the group characteristics of racial categories without
acknowledging race, and it is possible that these might be an example of implicit bias when consistently used
by individuals who clearly are opposed to discrimination. While these qualities seem desirable qualities for any
candidate, given the context of patterns of employment and other patterns of discourse, point to the usage of

23

these terms as code words. However, these are preliminary initial findings that warrant further research.
All of the respondents interviewed spoke highly of diversity and
showed pride in their diverse workforce, even while having trouble
discussing it specifically. When asked about what barriers their employees faced, most felt there were no barriers, but four individuals
noted that individuals simply needed to show initiative, and one noted
that self-esteem was at times a barrier. One owner did recognize that
implicit bias might play a role in hiring, Yes, you hire who you are
familiar with.
When asked if they sought a particular look when hiring, interview responses fell into two general categories, No, and clean-cut.
Six restaurants responded with some variation of no, four answered
with some variation of clean-cut, and one declined to answer. The
two ethnic restaurants with a primarily African American staff were the most explicit, stating
that they looked for potential employees that are professional looking, meaning they are well
groomed, have good hygiene, present themselves well, and a maintained, clean appearance.
One of these also noted that they evaluated new hires on how they spoke, dressed, and how
they carried themselves. The other restaurants specifically looked for someone who was cleancut and with good hygiene, and one explicitly stated: ethnicity doesnt matter as long as
they make a good presentation. Of the restaurants that stated they didnt have a look in mind
when they hired, one specified that they looked for people who were interesting, confident,
and colorful, and another that they looked for the ability to smile and be warm; not a look
so much as an energy. Another employer looked for individuals in the Front-of-the-House
that had a warm and generous feeling about them, but also the ability to multitask, and for
the Back-of-the-House wanted individuals, with pep to their step able to come out and be
warm and generous to people even if they dont understand [English].
Seven of the restaurants noted that they tried to hire from within the restaurant: Ideally
we are always promoting from within and only hiring entry level positions. This restaurant
only hired externally after they had tried to promote internally. However, this practice occurred
primarily in the kitchen where dishwashers were promoted to positions within the Back-of-theHouse, and rarely from the Back to the Front-of-the-House. Several of the restaurants relied on
the connections of current employees when hiring new staff, preferring to get recommendations
from current employees or other connections instead of receiving random applicants, a practice
that can make it more difficult for individuals without connections or in different social networks or ethnic groups to enter higher tier positions. Others preferred to post ads on Craigslist
and other on-line resources, such as Lively, although one specifically preferred in-print resources
such as newspaper ads. This restaurant also preferred to receive resumes in person to see and
get a feel for [the applicants]. A few restaurants discussed desirable attributes of an employee
that they could only evaluate after meeting in person, including one who noted that he liked
to see an applicants aura, their energy and general disposition on life, looking in particular
for a general warmth and sense of hospitality.
One restaurant required two years experience, including wine knowledge in the Front-ofthe-House, and a passion for food in the Back-of-the-House, and noted applicants should
be particularly interested in the particular restaurants cuisine. Only one restaurant, the longest
operating one, had a very clearly articulated hiring practice, in which the assistant manager
would interview six applicants and choose two candidates from whom the General Manager
and Owner would make the final hire. This restaurant also had the strictest hiring and promo-

24

tions practice, hiring only for entry-level positions and promoting only from within, as described below, but also
largely constrained within either the Back or Front-of-the-House.
3 Training, Promotions, and Mobility
Training and internal promotions are often the key pathways by which workers of color can or cannot advance
to higher paying positions. Our previous research has shown that the vast majority of workers in the restaurant
industry do not have access to training or an internal promotions pathway, and that this lack of mobility contributes to segregation by race and gender. Workers have reported that employers tend to hire from outside of the
restaurant for the highest-paying server and bartending positions rather than promoting workers of color from
lower-paying positions, even when those workers have the experience and ability to serve.40
In this study, several of the restaurant employers reported having training and promotion processes, but
the quality and extent of training and promotions varied greatly. Some employers reported testing a worker for
a higher paying position prior to providing a formal training process, in order to observe their work ethic and
interactions with customers. For the majority of restaurants the training process provided was simply hands-on
learning, within a two to three week formal training window. Workers are expected to shadow co-workers, or
train prior to shifts. One of the restaurants expected two to three days training in each position, augmented by
formal coffee and wine trainings, except for dishwashers who received only one hour of training.
Most of the restaurants did not seem to have a rigorous training system, exemplified by a lack of training
materials. Four of the restaurants trained employees formally with an employee manual, and two used a training
manual (one of these also used an employee manual.) Three other restaurants used ad-hoc materials, such as
articles from restaurant service magazines, or emailed word documents with announcements. One of the California restaurants relied on a large cookbook, and the Italian restaurant on a wine bible for on-going training.
Most trainings were conducted by management or senior staff. One of the restaurants required everyone to seek
SafeServ certification, including management, and saw higher productivity tied to the blanket requirement.
One of the owners saw it as her mission to in part, offer an educational component or training opportunity,
since previous experience was not as important as personality and a desire to learn. This was a very different
attitude than expressed by other interviewees, who wanted everyone to have experience, even though at least one
did not see internal growth as a real possibility.
The majority (64%) of the interviewees said they tried to promote internally before hiring outside but in
practice this translated to different outcomes in promotion practices. However, many of the restaurants did
not have a set promotions policy or process. Four had an explicitly informal process, four explicitly stated that
promotions were based on a performance evaluation, one noted that management approaches workers, and
another that promotions were addressed verbally in meetings.
Two of the smaller restaurants had an identified mission to educate, train and promote workers, and these
showed the greatest mobility from the Back to the Front-of-the-House. The owner of one of these restaurants
tells all new dishwasher hires, I tell everyone that comes to the door the goal is not to keep you there it is to
move you forward. This owner has kitchen employees come out and clear dishes in order to get them out front
and interacting with customers, and familiar and comfortable with the activity in the Front-of-the-House. While
initiative plays a large role, the restaurant pushes employees to challenge themselves and move into new positions.
As a result, people are moving around all the time, and dishwashers have moved to the front counter in short
amounts of time. This restaurant does not have a formal employee handbook or promotions practice.
In the second restaurant, one of the ethnic cuisine restaurants, management discusses promotions in the
worker handbook, and workers move back and forth between the Front and Back-of-the-House. If necessary the
owners or managers provide trainings to help employees advance.
In the Latin American themed restaurant with a primarily Latino staff, everyone is expected to perform in
both sides of the house. We always pick someone from here, and we put them in another position. However,
staff generally stayed in one section. The manager at this restaurant also took pride in promotions by noting,
That blond chick was a server, and now she is a supervisor.

25

The restaurant with the highest wages emphasized internal promotions efforts, in particular in order to retain
staff, but these efforts largely occurred within the either the Back or Front-of-the House. We have one cook right
now who is about to make the transition to a barback but, no, I dont think it has happened at all, maybe one
time I havent experienced a lot of that. This employer thought language was a barrier to mobility, noted that
Back-of-the-House employees took English classes to improve fluency, often had to work multiple jobs, and was
critical of the wage disparity between the Front and Back-of-the-House, yet did not acknowledge a need to try
and move more of those workers to the Front-of-the-House. This restaurant did conduct yearly reviews to raise
wages: Every person at the restaurant is on an upward track some at faster paces and some at slower paces but
no one has reached the peak of their compensationsWe feel it is an open ended thing.
The longest serving restaurant had a clear policy of only hiring entry level staff and then promoting from
within, but largely saw promotions taking place within the Back or Front-of-the-House. Moreover, promotions
from the Back to the Front-of-the-House were, less common than it should be. This practice of promoting
within either the Back or Front-of-the-House was common to six out of the eleven
restaurants interviewed.
Two restaurants explicitly stated there was no promotions pathway, did not see
many promotion opportunities, and did not have a promotions policy. One owner
noted, Well there is not really anything to promote to. She didnt think there
were any barriers to employees taking initiative and generally didnt see restaurant
workers as having a lot of initiative. That same owner felt that employees in the
Back-of-the-House of were there due to choice and ability, Usually Back-of-theHouse people are back there because thats where they want to be, because they
dont want to deal with customers, and that is where their skills set is. This owner
also expected workers to arrive with experience and had no plan to offer raises.
CONSUMER BARRIERS: IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT BIAS
Restaurant patron preferences and attitudes also play a role in racial segregation in the industry, but most
owners declined to discuss customer bias extensively. One noted that bias was not an issue, since customers
just want good service, while another simply stated, sure, sure, customers prefer [to be served by workers
of their own race.]
Past academic research has found race to be an important factor in the interactions between customers and
restaurant staff. Restaurant customers have been found to rate workers of color as less attentive, even though
they do not rate them differently on friendliness or appearance, and to tip them less than white workers.41, 42 The
ambiguity of the tipping system, where the outcome is believed to be dependent on the social encounter between
server and customer, has been found to promote discrimination based on social stereotypes from both parties.43
Customers have been found to discriminate based on race and gender, leaving greater tips for women who have
blond hair or that are rated as physically attractive.44 Also, the tipping system itself, in particular when tips are
the primary source of an individuals income, appears to promote sexual harassment not only in interactions
between customers and tipped workers, but in social interactions throughout the restaurant.45, 46
Two of the interviewees were willing to discuss the issue in greater detail. One owner made particular note
of how customers treat employees, and in particular employees of color, we do get a sector of the population,
we do get a lot of business people, and then we get a lot of entitled people. There is a way in which they talk to
the staff which is very inappropriate or is not respectful. Overbearing customers can create an unwelcoming
atmosphere for workers of color, and this can be driven by their biases. This same owner was shocked at how
her African American business partner was treated at times: I have witnessed it. Because, I would be, thats not
possible, thats not happening. No, vendors come in and introduce themselves; they go right to me. They just
avoid him. Its been really shocking to be part of that experience The other owner felt that customer bias was,
covered under layers of political correctness, and added:

26

I mean, here is the sad commentary, I guarantee you, if I put all whites in uniforms in chef hats in the
front, this caf would be taken much more seriously as a food place than what I have right now, and I could
have the exact same food. Its a [foodieism], its like, oh, these are people who are devoted to their craft.
I guarantee you that would be the case. I have thought about that too, not doing it, but just like, we work
hard to make the food really good and we source locally and there are all these expenses I have because of my
philosophy, that dont fully get manifested because of their perception of us.
This same owner experienced complaints from customers when he tried to promote workers of color, I promoted
a bus boy to bartender , I promoted a Back-of-the-House cook to server, and these were Latinos, and they
had heavy accents, and I got push back from guests, saying I cant understand in front of the guy I cant
understand this guy. I am paying this for my meal and I cant understand what he is saying.
Of course, there is also evidence that restaurant staff act out their prejudices on customers,47 which perhaps
also helps explain why ethnic restaurants were the only restaurants that successfully recruited workers of color
into Front-of-the-House Tier I positions. According to one of the employers of a casual full service restaurant,
Being an [ethnic] restaurant, it attracts more ethnic workers than other restaurants, because more people of
color are familiar with the food, and feel more welcome to come in off the street and ask for a job.
However, one of the owners of a fine-dining vegetarian restaurant found that this preference for staff of color
only applied to ethnic restaurants: If its a restaurant that has a particular ethnic bent to it then I think most
Mexican restaurants like to have Hispanic workers. I think Japanese restaurants like to have Japanese workers.
But with a restaurant with no particular ethnic bent, I dont think [there is a preference]. I would say no.
Implicit bias describes the subconscious discriminatory attitudes that many or most individuals hold or
engage in, and this is a likely candidate for understanding customer behavior. Racial resentment or anxiety also
must be taken into account: even though individuals express a desire for greater racial diversity, recent research
from the Center for Social Inclusion has found that racial anxiety can actually increase when individuals are
faced with racially diverse messengers.48 Greater research is needed in these areas to fully understand customer
behavior and how it impacts racial and gender segregation in the industry.

Conclusions
Although California represents a brighter picture than most of the nation due to its more diverse workforce and
higher wages, both California and the rest of the country demonstrate substantial wage inequality and significant
occupation segregation by both race and gender in the restaurant industry.
Most of the restaurant owners and General Managers interviewed did not seem to think that segregation was
an issue at their establishment, however most lacked diversity in both kitchen and service positions. A qualitative
analysis of their discourse seemed to show that they were consciously or subconsciously avoiding the issue of race.
The restaurants that were the most diverse also spent more time training and focusing on flexible promotion
pathways. The majority of the restaurants answered positively to being successful at promoting diversity, and
for many this was defined as diversity when combining both the Back and Front-of-the-House, or due to other
types of diversity, such as within Asian or Latino groups, or due to sexual orientation of staff.
Overall, the interviews pointed to real and perceived barriers among all three stakeholders workers, employers, and consumers as the primary barriers to desegregation. For workers, structural barriers and self-selection
bias presented challenges; for employers, implicit bias and a real lack of applicants were barriers; and for consumers, implicit bias appears to be at play but needs more inquiry. The general patterns and trends revealed through
the analysis of demographics and wages were borne out in the real barriers and gaps revealed through the analysis
of interviews. All of these trends merit extensive further research with much higher sample sizes to investigate and
understand these findings, both with employers, consumers, and workers, and to develop effective interventions
to increase economic opportunity, reduce inequality, and promote racial justice in the restaurant industry.

27

Policy Recommendations
This study found occupational segregation leading to real world negative outcomes in wages for workers of color
in the restaurant industry, and found that in a select sample of well-intentioned, primarily fine-dining establishments, structural barriers to occupational segregation remain a clear obstacle to establishing racially equitable
career ladders within the industry. Extensive additional and original research is needed to uncover the extent of
these structural barriers as well as strategies to overcome these barriers among employers, workers, and consumers.
However, this initial study does point to some policies that should be immediately explored.
1. For employers, this study points to the need for incentives, mandates, and prohibitions to combat bias, as
well as specific implicit bias trainings as have been adopted by a few police forces and other sectors to ward
against the perpetuation of inequity. Local policymakers should explore proposals to incentivize race and
gender desegregation and internal promotion, such as creating incentives for employers who provide transparent internal promotion pathways. Policymakers should also consider initiatives that prohibit racialized
filters such as a criminal record information request of applicants (i.e. ban the box initiatives).
2. For workers, this study points to the need for greater hard and soft skills training and other supports to
build confidence and assist in job placement. Policymakers should support workforce development programs
such as ROCs COLORS Hospitality for Workers (CHOW) program that provide free or low cost, quality
Front-of-the-House hard and soft skills training for all workers, but primarily targeted at workers of color
and women, to advance within the industry. Workers of color, in particular African American workers, face
an unemployment crisis that can be positively impacted through targeted workforce development initiatives. Policymakers should also consider mandated training for all workers in a locality, thus creating equal
opportunity pathways for all workers.
3. For consumers, this study points to the need for culture change, education, and engagement to enlist the
support of like-minded consumers in creating a climate where racial equity is lauded and rewarded. Advertising campaigns should be enacted to raise awareness of racial inequity in the restaurant industry, and
policymakers should publicize and support model employer practices to help educate consumers, and also
to provide much-needed guidance to other employers in the industry.

28

Appendix Additional details on the restaurants interviewed in the current sample.

Six of the establishments were fine-dining restaurants, three were casual full service establishments, and three
could be considered fast-casual full service or cafs (see Table 20). Three of the restaurants had been open three
years or less, four had been open between four and ten years, three had been open between 15 and 18 years,
and one had been open over 45 years. In total, the restaurants had 127 years of operation, averaging 11, ranging
from 1 to 45 years (excluding the outlier of 45, the restaurants had been open a collective 82 years, max of 18,
averaging 7.5 years experience).
Eight of the individuals were individual owners or partners, and four were general managers. Of these, seven
were men, five were women, seven were white, three were African American, one was Latino, and one refused
to disclose race or ethnicity (although they disclosed that they had an African American business partner.) The
restaurant owners and general managers interviewed had a collective 177 years of experience, averaging 15,
ranging from 1 to 49 (excluding the outlier of 49, the collective had 128 years experience, max of 21, averaging
12 years experience).
The race and gender composition of the restaurants interviewed varied from the race and gender composition
of California as a whole, with tremendous variation within individual establishments. Overall, women appeared
to be underrepresented in the Front-of-the-House, 52% of the employees in our small sample, compared to
60% state-wide. For Back-of-the-House, 43% of the workforce in the sample was women, compared to 31%
throughout the state. The Back-of-the-House gender breakdown varied between the different restaurants, from
0% to 100% women. Five of the restaurants had 50% or more female staff in Back-of-the-House. The restaurants
interviewed ranged from 30% to 80% female in Front-of-the-House, with the three largest ranging from 45%
to 55% women in Front-of-the-House.

TABLE 20

Characteristics of restaurants interviewed

Gender Race

Ownership

Segment

Role

Opening Concept

Fine dining

Owner

2014

California

Female

Refused (AA co-owner) Two partners

Male

White

Two partners & financial investors Fine dining

Owner

2012

Latin

Male

White

Individually owned

Fine dining

General manager

2008

Italian

Female

White

Two partners

Fine dining

Owner

2009

Vegetarian

Male

African American

Individually owned

Fine dining

General manager

2011

Soul Food

Male

African American

Three partners

Fast casual full service

Owner

2014

California

Male

African American

Individual owner

Casual full service

Owner

2012

Soul Food

Female

White

Individual owner - family

Casual full service

Owner

2000

Asian

Female

Latino

Individual owner - family

Fast casual full service

General manager

2006

Latin

10 Male

White

Two partners - family

Casual full service

General manager

1969

Latin

11 Female

White

Two partners

Fine dining

Owner

2000

California

12 Male

White

Individual owner

Fast casual full service

Owner

1997

California

29

At first glance, the racial composition of the restaurants interviewed broadly mirrored that
of California, with 46% white workers in the Front-of-the-House and 73% Latino workers
in the Back-of-the-House. The percentage of African American workers in the restaurants
interviewed, 32% in the Front and 18% in the Back-of-the-House, was much greater than
that seen in the rest of California. However, nearly 90% of the African American workers in
the restaurants interviewed worked in two Soul Food restaurants where 100% of Front-of-theHouse staff was African American, and 90% of Back-of-the-House staff was African American.
Without the inclusion of those restaurants, African American workers would represent 1% of
Back-of-the-House, and 7% of Front-of-the-House staff. Similarly, 38% of the Asian workers in
the restaurant sample worked at one Asian themed restaurant that had an entirely Asian kitchen
staff, and 100% of the Latino Front-of-the-House staff were employed at only two restaurants,
one of which had a primarily Latin American immigrant clientele (however, this does not include figures for restaurants that declined to provide a breakdown by race). Back-of-the-House
staff in most of the restaurants was overwhelmingly Latino: four of the kitchens had over 90%
Latino staff, one had 75% Latino staff, and one had 50% Latino staff, and the one restaurant
with no differentiation between Back-of-the-House and Front-of-the-House staff was 80%
Latino and 20% African American.
WAGES AND BENEFITS
While there were differences in the wages and benefits of these restaurants, one commonality
among all but two of the restaurants was that they paid their servers minimum wage, yet at
the same time the servers had the greatest earning potential due to tips. In one of the two
other restaurants, all workers had the same earning potential because there were no differences
between Front-of-the-House and Back-of-the-House all staff were engaged in joint food preparation and serving. The restaurant with the highest wages shared a portion of daily revenues with
servers and bartenders. Here, Front-of-the-House Tier I (servers and bartenders) earned a wage
that was higher than minimum wage, but lower than other staff, yet still had a higher earning
potential due to revenue sharing. Overall, dishwashers had the lowest earning potential. Wages
at the restaurants interviewed ranged from $10.50 to $22 in the Back-of-the-House, and from
$12.25 to $35 in the Front-of-the-House, when excluding the fast-casual restaurant with no
differentiation between Back-of-the-House and Front-of-the-House. There, employees earned
$9.75 per hour. On average, cooks earned $14.76, while servers earned $21.64. In all cases,
the absolutely highest wages were reported at the one fine-dining restaurant that had adopted
a revenue sharing model.
Most of the restaurants did not provide benefits other than for management unless mandated by the state, although one did provide health insurance for all full time employees, and
another based on [Affordable Care Act] requirements. Many restaurants expressed a desire to
provide it in the future, but said that it was not currently an option due to cost. The majority
of restaurants noted that they provided paid sick days due to a new state law mandating three
paid sick days per year.

30

Notes

1 Jim Crow Laws, Martin Luther King Jr National Historic Site, Georgia, National
Park Service. [http://www.nps.gov/malu/learn/education/jim_crow_laws.htm]
2 Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, The Great Service Divide: Occupational Segregation & Inequality in the US Restaurant Industry (New York, NY: ROC
United, 2014).
3 Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, Behind the Kitchen Door: The Hidden
Reality of Philadelphias Thriving Restaurant Industry, 43 (New York, NY: ROC
United, 2012).
4 Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, Behind the Kitchen Door: The Hidden
Costs of Taking the Low Road in Chicagolands Thriving Restaurant Industry, 39
(New York, NY: ROC United, 2010).
5 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment, Hours, and
Earnings from Current Employment Statistics, August 2015. [www.bls.gov/ces/]
6 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and wages for
the highest and lowest paying occupations, Occupational Employment Statistics,
May 2014. [http://www.bls.gov/oes/2014/may/high_low_paying.htm]
7 Heidi Shierholz, Low Wages and Few Benefits Mean Many Restaurant Workers Cant
Make Ends Meet (Washington DC: Economic Policy Institute, 2014).
8 Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, Behind the Kitchen Door: A Multi-Site
Study of the Restaurant Industry (New York, NY: ROC United, 2011).
9 Ibid.
10 Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, The Great Service Divide: Occupational
Segregation & Inequality in the US Restaurant Industry, 2 (New York, NY: ROC
United, 2014).
11 John M. Nunley, Adam Pugh, Nicholas Romero, and R. Alan Seals, Racial
Discrimination in the Labor Market for Recent College Graduates: Evidence from
a Field Experiment. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 15 (3)
(2015).
12 Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, The Great Service Divide: Occupational
Segregation & Inequality in the US Restaurant Industry, 12 (New York, NY: ROC
United, 2014).
13 Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, Behind the Kitchen Door: A Multi-Site
Study of the Restaurant Industry (New York, NY: ROC United, 2011).
14 Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, The Great Service Divide: Occupational
Segregation & Inequality in the US Restaurant Industry, 13 (New York, NY: ROC
United, 2014).
15 Cheryl Staats, Kelly Capatosto, Robin A. Wright, and Danya Contractor, Implicit
Bias Review 2015 (Columbus, OH: Kirwan Institute, Ohio State University, 2015).
16 Jessica Kang, Lets talk about race: How racially explicit messaging can advance
equity (New York, NY: Center for Social Inclusion, 2015).
17 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment, Hours, and
Earnings from Current Employment Statistics, August, 2015 [www.bls.gov/ces/]
18 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and wages for
the highest and lowest paying occupations Occupational Employment Statistics
(OES), 2014. [http://www.bls.gov/oes/2014/may/high_low_paying.htm]
19 Heidi Shierholz, Low Wages and Few Benefits Mean Many Restaurant Workers
Cant Make Ends Meet (Washington DC: Economic Policy Institute, 2014).
20 Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, The Great Service Divide: Occupational
Segregation & Inequality in the US Restaurant Industry, 2 (New York, NY: ROC
United, 2014).
21Ibid, 13.
22 U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns (CBP), 2013 [http://www.census.
gov/econ/cbp/]. NAICS 722 Food Services and Drinking Places, 1,229,161 paid
employees in California in 2013.
23 U.S Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2013). Calculations by ROC
United based on Ruggles et al., Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version
5.0 [Machine-readable database] (Minneapolis: Minnesota Population Center,
2010).
24 The CEPR provides consistent, user-friendly versions of the CPS (and other data
courses) as a service to interested policy researchers and academics, and we are
grateful for this service. [http://ceprdata.org/]
25 US Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division (WHD), Minimum Wages for
Tipped Employees, January 2013. [http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/tipped2013.htm]

26 Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, The Great Service Divide: Occupational

Segregation & Inequality in the US Restaurant Industry, 12 (New York, NY: ROC
United, 2014).
27 Note that the sample sizes are too small for the African American population for
the findings to be statistically meaningful. Because of this, we used the American
Community Survey to examine representation by race in limited service occupations (see footnote 7, supra).
28 Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, The Great Service Divide: Occupational
Segregation & Inequality in the US Restaurant Industry, 23 (New York, NY: ROC
United, 2014).
29 Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, Behind the Kitchen Door: Inequality
and Opportunity in Los Angeles, the Nations Largest Restaurant Industry, 57
(New York, NY: ROC United, 2011).
30 Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, et al., The Third Shift: Child Care
Needs And Access For Working Mothers In Restaurants, 7 (New York, NY: ROC
United, 2013).
31 C. Visher, N. LaVigne, & J. Travis, Returning home: Understanding the challenges
of prisoner reentry (Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, 2004).
32 Michael B. Katz, Mark J. Stern, and Jamie J. Fader, The New African American
Inequality. Journal of American History, 92 (1) (2005): 75.
33 Charles Tilly, Durable Inequality. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999)
34 S. Thomas-Breitfeld, L. Burnham, S. Pitts, M. Baynard, A. Austin, #BlackWorkersMatter (Discount Foundation & National Funders Group, 2015).
35 V. Lorant, and R. S. Bhopal, Ethnicity, Socio-Economic Status and Health
Research: Insights from and Implications of Charles Tillys Theory of Durable
Inequality. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 65 (8) (2011):
671675.
36 D. Tomaskovic-Devey, The Relational Generation of Workplace Inequalities.
Social Currents, 1 (1) (2014): 5173.
37 J. Aronson and M. Inzlicht, The ups and downs of attributional ambiguity:
Stereotype vulnerability and the academic self-knowledge of African American
students. Psychological Science, 15 (2004): 829-836.
38 S.J. Spencer, C.M. Steele, & D.M. Quinn, Stereotype threat and womens math
performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35 (1999): 4-28.
39 Cheryl Staats, Kelly Capatosto, Robin A. Wright, and Danya Contractor, Implicit Bias Review 2015 (Columbus, OH: Kirwan Institute, Ohio State University,
2015).
40 See Great Service Divide, and Behind the Kitchen Door city reports, for example.
[http://rocunited.org/research-resources/our-reports/]
41 Michael Lynn, Michael Sturman, Christie Ganley, Elizabeth Adams, Mathew
Douglas, and Jessica McNeal, Consumer Racial Discrimination in Tipping: A
Replication and Extension. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(4), (2008):
1045-1060.
42 Michael Lynn and Michael Sturman, Is the Customer Always Right? The Potential
for Racial Bias in Customer Evaluations of Employee Performance. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 41(9) (2011): 2312-2324.
43 Lu-in Wang, At the Tipping Point: Race and Gender Discrimination in a Common
Economic Transaction. SSRN Electronic Journal (2013).
44 Michael Lynn, Determinants and Consequences of Female Attractiveness and
Sexiness: Realistic Tests with Restaurant Waitresses. Archives of Sexual Behavior
38 (5) (2009): 73745.
45 Restaurant Opportunities Centers United & Forward Together, The Glass Floor:
Sexual Harassment in the Restaurant Industry (New York, NY: ROC United,
2014).
46 Chia-Jeng Lu and Brian H. Kleiner, Discrimination and Harassment in the
Restaurant Industry. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 21
(2001): 192205.
47 C. Mallinson, Blacks and Bubbas: Stereotypes, Ideology, and Categorization
Processes in Restaurant Servers Discourse. Discourse & Society, 16 (6) (2005):
787807.
48 Jessica Kang, Lets talk about race: How racially explicit messaging can advance
equity (New York: Center for Social Inclusion, 2015).

31

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the funding support provided by the University of California Santa
Cruz Center for Collaborative Research for an Equitable California.
THIS REPORT WAS RESEARCHED AND WRITTEN BY:

Tefilo Reyes, Research Director, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United; Chris Benner,
Director, Everett ProgramDigital Tools for Social Innovation, University of California, Santa
Cruz, and Professor of Environmental Studies and Sociology; and Saru Jayaraman, Director,
Food Labor Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, and Co-Founder and Co-Director, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United.
This report would not be possible without the support of many organizations and individuals.
We want to first acknowledge the restaurant owners and managers who agreed to participate
in interviews for this project. Their experience and candor was instrumental to understand
the problems facing workers of color in the restaurant industry. We also want to acknowledge
Morgan Prentice, for assistance in conducting, coding, and analyzing the interviews, Michelle
Nnaji, Taylor Ferguson, Kathy Hoang, Manuel Villanueva, Ariel Hamburger, and Jill Esbenshade (Dept. of Sociology, San Diego State University) for conducting interviews, Saqib Keval
for assisting with interview collection, and Ariel Jacobson, Jessica Kang, and Mike Rodriguez
for editing and commenting on previous drafts. We want to give special thanks to the Center
for Social Inclusion and Race Forward for their valuable input into this project.

THIS REPORT SHOULD BE CITED AS:

Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, Ending Jim Crow in Americas Restaurants:

Racial and Gender Occupational Segregation in the Restaurant Industry
(New York, NY: ROC United, 2015).

COVER PHOTO of Advanced CHOW Trainees Sheena Redmond and David Hardiman, serv-

ing The Ford Foundation Trustee Dinner held at Colors Detroit. Photo courtesy of Daphne
Doerr Photography.
Design by Quanci Design | quancidesign.com
2015 Restaurant Opportunities Centers United

32

ENDING JIM CROW IN AMERICAS RESTAURANTS

Racial and Gender Occupational Segregation

in the Restaurant Industry

Restaurant Opportunities Centers United

275 Seventh Avenue, Ste 1703
New York, NY 10001
212.343.1771
info@rocunited.org
www.rocunited.org